If capitalism is good, why doesn't it address the issue of poverty...

Who says poverty is an issue?
If socialism or whatever other meme ism you adhere to is good why doesn't it solve the "issue" of ugly people?
See how that works?

Some people are poor, some people are ugly, and in both cases the "issue" in question is really just a natural lack of value. In a world which is full of things that lack value, why should you expect humans to be any different?

>hey lets blame free trade when we live in a society where there are 200,000 pages of business regulations and tax codes

Every. Fucking. Time.

Because that's part of the good old MUH HUMAN NATOORE!!!!

>ugly people exist therefore material poverty should exist too
kek

>poverty is a problem that can be solved by coercion

Kek

If it's upheld by coercion why can't it be fixed with coercion?

>in b4 Bengali children working 14 hours a day in a sweatshop is "voluntary"

indigence is objective, for example, ammount of calories consumed by each person, malnutrition.

poverty is subjective. the USA has many poor people who dont starve, are fat, have cable tv, internet, and even own cars.

the state should prevent indigence, and give equal access to education (which doesnt mean college for everybody, free access can include entrance exams) and healthcare, but eliminating poverty isnt a realistic goal, because its meaning changes in every country.
My country (which I wont mention) has a poverty rate higher than that of one of my neighbour countries. But in that country you only need 2100 calories per day to not be considered poor, while in my country you need 2700 per day.

Countries measure poverty in different ways.

If there is an average income, there will always be people who make less than average, and who could poor by them or the State, even if they have a pretty good life.

But there are rich people that have a natural lack of value besides being someone's kid

but telling people what they should do with their money is against freedom.
millionaires, be them self made or not, can give the money to their kids.
And the State can and does tax inheritance in many countries.

It's because it's run by Jews. Communism is also an unjust system run by Jews.

Property is a spook m8.

really makes you think

>If you want to stop being poor provide greater value.

>muh bootstraps

What isn't a spook?

Funny story, it's not completely untrue. Capitalism was known as the Manchester system in its earliest form, and Manchester was full of Jews back then. Karl Marx and most of the early Russian revolutionaries were also Jews. And of course a vastly disproportionate amount of wealth and power is wielded by Jews in the modern world.

and there beautiful people that have a natural lack of value besides being someone's kid too (beauty is also inherited just as wealth is), what's your point?

Should we bash their faces in with bricks just to bring them down to the level of the ugly people?

With both rich and beautiful people the fact they inherited their value is irrelevant, they still possess inherent value regardless of how it offends your feelings, and that inherent value is not somehow diminished simply because it was inherited.

Capitalism adress the "issue of poverty" better than any other economic system.

>poverty is upheld by coercion
LOL
>Bengali street kids would be happier if they had no jobs at all
LOLOL

A nigger stealing your property to appease his own egoistic drive.
No what that's a spook too....

Capitalism allows people to get out of poverty

le poverty meme

Even the poorest in first world countries own fucking iPhones. That's literally all of the world's knowledge and need to learn whatever you want in the space of your fucking pocket.

There is literally no reason to be poor in modern day first world societies, prove me wrong.

If poverty is bad, then capitalism, which is best at alleviating poverty, is good.

The physical product of one's labor and the means of production.

/thread

Why do commies think their vrsion of muh human nature trumps the free markets version of muh human nature

Simply because every attempt at instating a socialist state has ended in utter failure, violence, and instability.

People will prefer to have a certain future, even a shit one, over an uncertain future.

One's body is part of one's person hood. One's property is not. Man does not own himself unless man can sell himself, so man can not be said to be equivalent to property unless one accepts he can be property of another.

>There is literally no reason to be poor in modern day first world societies, prove me wrong.

>be born black
>go to shit school in inner city
>get shit education and become unable to go to college
>apply for menial jobs to help out household
>"His name is tyrone. Put it in the trash can intern."
>repeat 10+ times over
>head home after looking for jobs all day
>turn on TV
>"I mean honestly it's their own fault. They need to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps."
>wut

the true capitalist scotman fallacy

>be born black
>have iphone and smartphone device
>can literally use it be taught any course for free from such top institutions such as harvard and mit
>decide instead to use it for social media
>waaah its societies fault

????

>"yeah I learned how to be an electrical engineer by watching lectures about it on YouTube n shiet. Hire me nigga!"
?????!

lol

You do realize over half of computer programmers are self taught, right?

There's literally no excuse.

People hire based on the diploma they say they have, not whether or not they actually too the classes. That's how Mrs. Trump got the job.

>people aren't poor because they own glorified toys
Woah.

>why doesn't it address the issue of poverty?
It does?

Compare the standard of living of the """poor""" in the West and of the truly poor in Cuba and North Korea.

muh hooman nature changes

fyi free trade≠capitalism

The Capitalist statist democracy has done more to advance humanity and reduce world poverty than any other system, yet commies and ancaps still constantly lambast it.

Capitalism is very unstable and has many critical flaws which must be compensated for by implementing socialistic solutions in the form of mixed economies such as the US economy.

Nice fucking meme. I've seen places in the supposedly richest and most prosperous country on Earth where people still don't have fucking running water.

They still usually go to college.

>le poor capitalist countries don't exist meme
Compare the standard of living in Haiti to that in Cuba.

The rich should be afraid; one day the poor will have nothing left to eat but the rich.

So what? Their family earned it and chose what to do with it.

not an argument

What country are you talking about? If you're talking about America stfu, the only places that dont have running water is the west texas and that area, and it's a logistical issue, not a money issue. They have the haul water, but once they get it, they fill up a tank and run it from there.

Personally, I've been thinking the universe adhears to Anthropic Principal.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Which is why we haven't had a zombie outbreak or nuclear war.

By that I mean we only observe our world because it will always exist and continue to exist for the entire future of possibilities.

Otherwise we wouldn't be around to notice it not existing. Which is why the laws of physics are friendly to life.

What does this have to do with capitalism?

I would argue capitalism won out over National Socialism or Communism, then technological progress would stagnate. Communism would not have developed the PC processor and neither would have the Nazis.

Why is the processor important, it will eventually lead to AI. Capitalism is all over this and because it is most friendly to the creation of AI it was allowed to be the dominate system by the universe? Why? Because AI is required for mankind to leave the planet and exist as long as possible throughout the universe and maybe figure out heat death problem.

That said, capitalism itself will create AI but it will not survive the post scarcity world that AI will create.

That's some pretty deep shit...

>I would argue capitalism won out over National Socialism or Communism, then technological progress would stagnate. Communism would not have developed the PC processor and neither would have the Nazis.
What sort of drugs are you on?

I was referring to parts of West Virginia, a bit of Virginia, and areas of the inner West. In many of the Indian reservations in the Southwest something like 50% of people don't have access to running water.

You answered your own question. People place their faith in capitalism, that's why it'll never go away.

Just white wine, like god intended.

If man does not own himself then who does?
If my body is not my property then whose is it Red?
The state's?
Get fucked commie.

It did, with welfare state.

As for people who want capitalism, the liberals, for them freedom overrides material security.

>why doesn't it address the issue of poverty

It does. The poor in capitalist societies are better off than the poor anywhere else, and have more opportunities to escape that poverty.

ITT: triggered amerifats

Capitalism doesn't address poverty, but social democracy does. True poverty is pretty much eradicated in my country, the bare minimum of subsistence here is a roof above your head, food stamps, and money for health care, additional food, and even entertainment. Made possible by a capitalist society.

>inequality
>immoral

Pick one, commie.

Inequality is necessary in order for a society to grow wealthy and thus prosper.

Besides, even if you improve the living standards of the poor, they're still going to be poor because someone else is always richer than them.

Look up the term "relative poverty".

>post scarcity
Your post was interesting up until this point, now I feel like I wasted my time reading it.

It really goes like this
>Be born black
>Have useless deadbeat parents
>Have no role models to teach me practical middle-upper class skills
>End up just like my parents

Poverty in the West is a social problem, not an economic problem. It isn't solved by throwing money at the poor. They'll still be poor in soul, as the lottery winners and entertainers who end up declaring bankruptcy because they have no concept of moderation.

Indian reservations govern themselves. It's their fault for being so insular and incompetent.

You do realize charity is real right?

The more of my money you swipe away from me in the form of exorbitant taxes to pay for the 6th time reelected senator , the less I can invest in charity,

Self interest doesn't = profit only

People have other drives to help people. Government should be minimal, or offer a negative tax return.

Yeah man Haiti a country with 0 security, lots of unskilled labor, and no incentives for anybody to move there

Meanwhile we still send shiploads of humanitarian aid. Through taxes and through volunteer efforts. We as capitalists endlessly. Are trying to help poor countries. These countries are lacking a good environment to being them up. Western countries can no longer help because muh imperialism. I hate it when people build schools roads and provide security and open up trade and mutual prosperity with the rest of the world

what a fairy tale vision of the situation of Haiti.

>Companies refuse to give entry positions to black people
Want to know how I can tell you're a NEET?

Then explain the situation in Haiti. Right now there is next to 0 investment domestically or internationally due to security, population skillset distribution, and just overall any lack of incentive to attract people, and their capital to create more wealth in the region. Look at Dominican Republic which has much more diverse and skilled labor, actual security enough so much that tourists actually want to go. And less red tape

>he doesn't know about bread and games
give the proles just enough to live and they'll never revolt

Haiti isn't poor because evil capitalists are exploiting it but because no one will invest in it. As proof compare Haiti to countries active in the global market and receiving investment.

Why are you autistic neckbeards keep spamming your cringy stuff here all the time?

[collapsing intensifies]

capitalism is pretty fucking egalitarian in theory, even moreso than communism. capitalism is how the natural world should and does logically work, while communism is a crazy deranged theory that can only maybe work in a limited capacity in special conditions.

as for why the moral argument, capitalism is inherently moral or immoral, and it doesnt addres the issue of poverty because
a. capitalism isn't a rigid blueprint of how society works, it's more of a philosophy
b. poverty will always exist, and there is nothing you can do really do about it
c. it doesn't really do anyone good to eradicate poverty, it means that some people put money/energy into a system that sucks more of those resources than it can pay back ( it's a bad investment)

with that being said, poverty is less prevalent in capitalist societies

broadly, capitalism is just the belief of self-ownership.

>bengali kids would be happier seeing their mothers and sisters go to prostitution rings rather than having a job in a sweatshop

people aren't stupid, they choose those jobs because its better alternative than the other.

>give

>be born black
>go to shit school who's standards has been runned down by collusion between the local teacher's unions and the sitting politicians.
>get shit education but still gets into college because of affirmative action and spends thousands of debt chasing a dream when there is more economically viable alternatives out there like vocational schools
>quits uni early and apply for a menial job
>"his name is tyrone? well, if he's willing to work at this rate, I can't just let him go, hire him manager"
>repeat this process 5 times
>gets skills and experience that elevates your value
>head home after new job as manager
>turn on TV
>"I mean honestly, blacks are incapable of doing anything for themselves so they should just give us the power to manage their lives for them"
>wut.

>capitalism is pretty fucking egalitarian in theory
Competitive markets are pretty egalitarian in theory.

>even moreso than communism
No.

>capitalism is how the natural world should and does logically work
No it isn't. The natural world does not have competitive markets, absentee property and currency. Mercantilism, and barter economy are natural and primitive trade economies.

>while communism is a crazy deranged theory that can only maybe work in a limited capacity in special conditions.
It works under post-scarcity. Socialism is the system used for dealing with scarcity.

>a. capitalism isn't a rigid blueprint of how society works, it's more of a philosophy
Capitalism is always supported by a rigid blueprint of society. It's why they say possession is nine tenths of the law. Modern notions of property are that unnatural and not at all self-evident.

>b. poverty will always exist, and there is nothing you can do really do about it
There actually is.

>c. it doesn't really do anyone good to eradicate poverty, it means that some people put money/energy into a system that sucks more of those resources than it can pay back ( it's a bad investment)
It's actually usually a good investment to hire impoverished people. This is why capitalists go to impoverished nations to hire people in poverty. This usually requires a rate of profit that makes it difficult to let the workers escape poverty. It becomes a bad investment to the investor when you let the worker keep the lion's share of profit so they can escape poverty. It's not that they're economically unproductive. Not all people who are in poverty are crazy veteran hobos.

>with that being said, poverty is less prevalent in capitalist societies
Because capitalist societies have a huge head start on amassing capital, and there has not been a socialist revolution that was successful in appropriating a large amount of ex-capitalist capital, and socialist revolutions usually resulted in capital flight and happened in undeveloped counties. They also usually practiced Soviet non-market socialism.

There's a reason why socialism is supposed to happen after a country has industrialized through capitalism. Enterprise builds lots of capital when there is a large amount of labor supply, like in developing countries. When an economy is highly industrialized, the labor component becomes less and less important creating a increasing imbalance of power between owners and workers.

Contrary to American and Soviet propaganda, there has never been a communist state, Sovietism is not the only for of socialism, socialism does not mean only non-market economy, and there are geo-political factors that play into whether or not a country is successful, not just their economic system.

Please educate yourself.

Property is a social construct unless you have the means to protect your property. If you rely on society to protect your property, then it's just a social construct. Owning property is not the same as owning yourself. If the capitalist idea of property stops serving society, society should reconsider the idea of property.

It's because Jesus said there would always be poor people, and to contradict him is blasphemy.

Are African nations capitalist?

I mean they aren't communist these days and they are pretty shit.

And technically Somalia was ancap for some time. They even got a working cell phone system despite not having a central government.

That said, being poor in Somalia is worse than being poor in the USA.

I'd argue infrastructure is more important than capitalism.

If you have running water, roads, and electricity, then well things aren't so bad.

>When an economy is highly industrialized, the labor component becomes less and less important creating a increasing imbalance of power between owners and workers.

But that's the opposite of what has happened in post industrial societies. Knowledge workers have an immense amount of leverage in negotiation because 1 machinist can halt the operation of an entire factory as he's the only one on staff who can reprogram the machines or troubleshoot glitches.

In unskilled positions the Marxist doctrine might be true, but recent developments have increased reliance on highly specialized workers who know things that the owners do not and could never hope to learn.

but the capitalist idea is that as long as individuals are capable of trading with one another freely, they will always try to find a beneficial arrangement for both parties and through that arrangement, society benefits because society isn't independent from its members who trade with one another.

owning property is very much linked with the idea of self-ownership because a major part of capitalism is the trade of skills and labor which is a product of your character. Should that mean that if an individual stops serving society, should his right to his own labor, skills, and thoughts be forfeit?

capitalism dosent run on theory it runs on profit, it does not serve society it forces society into whatever form maximises profit

Societal benefit and maximum profits aren't mutually exclusive.

>it does not serve society

Capitalism is a system of economic arrangement not an all encompassing political economic and social system like the jewish death cult of socialism

what does "serve society: mean? do you think communism serve society? do you think mercantilism serve society? do you even think socialism serve society?

I wasn't arguing if capitalism advocated for "society's benefit" I argued that capitalism just allowed individuals to freely trade with one another, be it through items or skills. and that the resultant effect is that both parties benefit.

If you view society dependent on the individuals who are part of it, you cannot say that capitalism does not provide its members, and thus society, benefits. but if you view society as independent of the individuals who comprises it, then I can see how you would come to that conclusion.

>but the capitalist idea is that as long as individuals are capable of trading with one another freely, they will always try to find a beneficial arrangement for both parties and through that arrangement, society benefits because society isn't independent from its members who trade with one another.
That's a trade economy. You've described a barter economy. That's not even a competitive market economy. Socialism does not mean centrally planned economy, a centrally planned economy can be socialist, it can also not be socialist, socialism can be centrally planned, or it could not be. Pre-Marx Ricardian socialists would probably blow your mind. Please just educate yourself.

>owning property is very much linked with the idea of self-ownership because a major part of capitalism is the trade of skills and labor which is a product of your character.
What sets capitalism apart from socialism is the conception of property. Skills and labor are not the same as property, and you should not equate them as such. They are the product of personhood and inseparable from the person. Nor is personhood the same as any other kind of property, unless you believe in slavery. If you can not sell yourself into bondage, there is something separate and unique about a person that separates him from property.

>Should that mean that if an individual stops serving society, should his right to his own labor, skills, and thoughts be forfeit?
That's really up to the society to determine if society (which consists of individual persons) is more important than personhood, and if the individual person has the means to defend themselves, or the society has the means to coerce the individual. I'm not making a moral argument. Not all socialists are hippie commune greater good love and peace people.

>Which is why we haven't had a zombie outbreak or nuclear war.
>By that I mean we only observe our world because it will always exist and continue to exist for the entire future of possibilities.

The anthropic principle just says that you can't find yourself a living human in a world where humans are already nonviable. Even the strong anthropic principle doesn't guarantee that the world you do find yourself in will keep you viable. All the anaerobic organisms that got wiped out in the oxygen revolution found themselves alive in a world that seemed made just for them, too.

Many-world anthropic principle.

Idk what you think that means.

Capitalism has checks and balances to ensure those whom aren't innovative or competitive enough don't retain any undue value.

Poverty is that balance; the market doesn't care if you are born poor or rich, if you exhibit the inherit good qualities of capitalism you will always be successful.

>Capitalism has checks and balances to ensure those whom aren't innovative or competitive enough don't retain any undue value.
t. (((banker)))